Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

'By contrast, in the French republican system, the state represents the so-called will of the people. As a result, its authority is less constrained, which may explain the greater frequency in France of street demonstrations and even of mob violence. Indeed, these upheavals may act as informal checks on official power.'

If you think riots in the street everytime any attempt to reform is made is a good idea... well what can anybody say. It is essentially a thug action. France will continue to slide precisely because of this. Because of this slide the Le Pens of this world are on the rise because they are the political manifestation of denial of reform. The very system referred to as a good balance to power will be the undoing of progress in France.

It was French reluctance to reform proposals that lead to Hollande being elected. As he has not dealt with the structural problems and never had any desire to address them things have simply got worse

Excellent article. Provides many interesting and provocative insights, perspectives, and historical comparisons. Gives the reader a lot to think about before formulating and expressing opinions. Everything that characterizes a great professor!

The author needs to look at cause and effect. In Europe, the official policy is to take all important policy away from national democratic government and give it to the banks without a meaningful EU democracy. They seem especially eager to inflict pain on Italy and in Spain that will produce another Mussolii and Franco.
In the US the so-called left-wing party is totally controlled by Citigroup and it followed a "asset stimulus" policy for 7 years that tripled the stock market, while, according to the Fed, produced declining wages for 90% of the population.

Of course, the public lashes out in anger and supports someone who promises change. Germany of the 1930s was produced by elites in the 1920s.

By fund voting, explained in my ebook Democracy with sequential choice and fund voting, there is not place for tyranny of the majority. A matter submitted for fund voting will be handled with any alternative a participant (representative) feels has sense. Instead of majority as it has been experienced, in fund voting it is a question what alternative of the matter gains most support in a game (fund voting) which brings responsibility to the offering of votes, as a participant´s use of votes can reduce his strength in other matters.

A representative democracy cannot work without the 'demos'. Opinion polls and popularity contests are no substitute for participation in the democratic process. One way to solve the problems seems to be that millions of people join political parties and demand reforming the process from within. The political parties are an indispensable link to transform the majority will both on ideological positions and on candidate selection to the electoral choice at the ballot box and the broadly based representation of the elected legislators, and, for the American presidential system, the president as well. If not broadly based in the 'demos' the process becomes hijacked by special interests and/or ideological pressure groups as all conceptually representative democracies have experienced. Last but not least - representative democracy cannot survive if voter participation is regularly and substantially below 80%, or so. A much lower voter turnout should not produce valid election results, as it cannot be considered representative.

Tocqueville was a very shrewd judge of the psychology of a largely homogenous, democratic 19th century American society (excluding slavery). But he did not really have a theory of economic interests, and the ways in which racial, ethnic, and religious divisions complicate political equality.

In Federalist No. 10 (on factions) and No 51 (on checks and balances), James Madison did suggest how the structure of the Constitution was designed to forestall majority (or minority) tyranny. M. looked to a federated government divided into states to deflect the force of factions, and to a system of checks and balances to prevent one faction from dominating national power.

Today, the U.S. is a divided, heterogeneous (ethnically, racially, religiously) society, The current two-party system appears to have finally defeated M.'s expectations, and complicated some of T's. U.S.politics has become sharply bi-polar for only the second time in our history (the 1850s was the first, and it caused a civil war that T. predicted). Our current situation is based in large part on racial, ethnic, and religious divisions among "red" and "blue" states yoked together in the federal system. The electoral weight of states does not fully reflect the size of their populations.

Slow economic growth and increasing inequality loom over everything else as an irritant. It's a stretch to believe that an 18th century constitutional remedy for faction will answer the challenges posed by the clash of bi-polar political parties that mirror geographic, racial, ethnic, and religious factions, and that are increasingly felt more deeply than a commitment to the tradition of constitutional fairness.

I'm just wondering if an author consider the 44-th president, which has a pen and a phone to liberate himself from Constitutional restrictions on his power, as a symbol of slipperiness towards autocracy? or may be FDR, which implemented the censorship in the USA and deprived the Supreme Court of its power?
I'm also wondering if an author consider a possibility that it's not education and skin color, but misdeeds and policies of Obama may cause dislike of this POTUS? there is no problem with Cruz education for the very same people who criticize Obama.
just another terribly written article of Ian Buruma - low quality, cheap agitprop :(

Watching CBS GOP debate...one gets the impression these dudes are unlikely to STOP HRC from winning the WH along with Senate & (may be) House of Reps. If that should happen, it won't matter whether Scalia's death will change the balance of power in SCOTU...Obama will nominate and Senate GOP will hold it up! HRC will get the job done & replace the GOP domination of the SC. Can you imagine they're in process of holding up the Climate Convention agreed in Paris!
Democracy is in America will get worse before the election cycle is over by end of year, methinks.

Globalization, immigration, and cosmopolitanism have served the interests of a highly educated minority, but sometimes at the expense of less privileged people. ..........
Sometimes? Sometimes? Get a clue pal. Come out of the ivory tower and get down here in the trenches with the majority of us. Then maybe you will understand.

I find it hard to respond to such a vaguely-written article that neither confines itself to the subject matter of its title nor includes enough specifics for me to evaluate to what extent I might agree.

If the message is that the United States is just one Trump (or Cruz?) away from either mob rule or dictatorship, I can't agree.

The U.S. has a very long rule-of-law tradition backed by a high degree of litigiousness, and a system for making laws that has a lot of built-in inertia. It is difficult to find an American who does not revere the Constitution (even those who've never read it), so with the possible exception of a tiny lunatic fringe the discussion of what to do about, for example, a hated Supreme Court decision never strays outside the Constitution's rules.

The American democracy has been ruled by the establishment which includes the media. 2016 is a watershed moment when people, finally, says enough is enough.
Take the big money of out the election equation will eliminate most of America's unjust.
For those who says Sanders' free education is not affordable, I'll say America cannot afford not educating our youths.
Has anyone noticed that many university professors and graduate students are foreigners?
Many top engineers in most high tech companies are foreign born?
America has a constitution that protects minorities from majority rule. We only need to educate our youth and we'll be just fine.
Side note: Poor Dickerson, CBS should have given him the gong!

The divisions between left and right in Europe and America have been framed as a global, tolerant vs a nationalistic, xenophobic disparity. In THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER, a similar social conflict is explained by underlining the daily experiences of the governing classes as out of touch with the daily experiences of the governed. I believe a similar dynamic could be happening now. For the last 40 years the western world has not been governed for the day to day life of its citizens. It' governing principles have been directed to the expansion and profit of its corporate sponsors. This process has been tolerated and justified by the income and job creation that would benefit the citizens. True enough. The unexpected consequences have been the erosion of other citizen needs that are not explicitly financial but until 2005-8 have been covered over by the growth of their finances. What are those needs? There is a human need to have trust and connection with authorities and peers. Especially in democracies or almost-democracies there is need for trust and confidence that their government is in their corner and is capable of benevolent and wise leadership that is in their long term interest. This is all based on a hardwired need for pack (societal) unity and connection. Evolution did not make exceptions based on social class. It seems to me that this need for unity of values and value-stability has been neglected. Donald Trump is not opening the treasury. He is not promising a social future. To the extent that Bernie Sanders, Marie LePen, etc. are tapping a similar vein in our citizens' boiling blood it is this unacknowledged change in the rules of the game. These rules should favor clear middle class values. Saving pays off. Law abiding citizens come out ahead. Listen to the police. Be generous to strangers but more so to family and neighbors. The guilty are punished in the end. Soldiers do not die in vain. Active, intrusive, diabolical enemies should receive no quarter, no tolerance, no excuses. These statement are no longer valid in the eyes of many on both sides of the pond. The financial 1% are not just extraordinarily rich they are extraordinarily insulated from consequences of changes in societal "man on the street" experiences. It is not about lowering or stagnant incomes. This is not a welfare class revolution. Nor are the demagogues making things up. The societal guidelines that weaves our fabric have already been torn but the damage has not been acknowledged. They are in danger of becoming acknowledged by unfortunate mult-state events.

Trumpism, by Trump, or Cruzism, by Cruz, doesn't "skirt" the "old party establishments". It confronts the establishment head-on. Trump and Cruz talk plain English, not doublespeak. And then the establishment shrinks quietly back into its comfortable backroom. It is in this backroom with its lobbyist friends, many of whom are ex-politicos, where the deals have been made that shortchange those who voted them into office and make the public mad. McConnell, establishment in spades, was made worthless when rightfully called a "liar" by Cruz, disgraced not only for lying, but for thinking that all of his colleagues would accept it. Thank goodness one didn't. And thank goodness Trump, like Cruz, isn't cowed either.

I would venture to say Mr. Buruma that in modern day politics the majority of all media outlets and politicians of all categories have a populist vein within their modus operandi for they comprehend that fear sells: that it sways people's mind; that it creates unity of purpose; that it forges political consciousness between the diverse social classes that conform a society. Would you not agree that your article in itself is a manifestation of stoking consternation against the upsurge of populism?

Demagogues are not the ones "poisoning mainstream politics"; it is the global economical uncertainty that permeates our Western way of Life; the constant refugee crisis, unbridled terrorism, corruption in business and government circles, global warming, crime, among other issues that have the populace angry at those who politically rule their existence for they see that the ballot they cast is inconsequential in the scheme of things. Look at President Barrack Obama's two terms: when the US citizenry voted to elect him they did so regardless of his education or race. They pinned their hopes on a man they thought would change a system that many thought an overhaul was needed…yet the song remains the same! The angst that exists in the present toward his administration is based not on the fact that he is a card-carrying member of the elite establishment but rather at the litany of errors committed during his presidency and the unfulfilled promises he made. What you point as a rise in populism is just a strong rejection of business as usual by a constituency that is fatigued at the perennial quota of doublespeak that is featured in the arsenal of most current day political figures and the media that elevates them to a surreal realm of power.

I put to your understanding a unique rule (or law), which can replace all constitutions of the world and will bring more democracy than people need.

Care about another (or anything else, we need to include the nature in this!) more then you care about yourself.

If this unique rule apply, instead of democratic lives and let lives, I think the world will be happier.
It is the principle of reciprocity or equal benefit, unknown, as I see, to philosophical engineers like Mr Petey Bee.
The teeth of two different in size gear wheels (because each person in this world is a minority in itself) push equal one against the other (simply because Newton said that!) but the effect is according to the personality of each wheel in the system.

That is a very interesting thought, but I wonder how it can be made a practical requirement. In addition, I feel, it is very easy that arguments are constructed to appear as if they are thinking of others and environment above themselves, but without really being honest and sincere.

The internet is one of the greatest challenges faced by modern democracy as it facilitates the rise of populist demagogues.
Over the last 200 years the news media - newspapers, and later radio and television - have acted as moderators in politics, but their role is now in decline.
I wonder if there even is any solution.
It seem that established democracies (be that the US, Holland, France, or the UK) will flirt with destructive, demagogic governments with chaotic results. It might be a replay of the disastrous downfall of the ancient Athenian democracy whose demagogues brought the state to ruin.

Athenians' democracy proved to be creative enough till its end, which came, not from internal but from external reasons, in 322 BC. Some say that internal conflicts between rich and poor, in Athens of that period, were also a sign of decline of the first democracy, but the end came because of the rise of Philip and the Macedonians.

1) The question of the most superior form of government: Constitutional Monarchy. The monarchy provides a stabilizing influence when political passions veer into barbarity.

2) The inadequacies of the USA system: The rise of the stalker gangs in the USA, that now openly poison whomever they like, has shown that the USA system, with restraints on internal powers, is inadequate to deal with internal threats.
At the very least the Balkanized multitude of police forces should be combined into one United States police force, thus improving standards and reach. It is ridiculous that 19 century police organization is still the norm in the 21st century.

The problem of majoritarianism has far deeper roots. And what is more disconcerting is the fact that its is conveniently ignored by ALL social sciences. I am yet to come across even a single social scientist who is even willing to recognise it as a 'problem'.

Almost all social sciences use unscientific methodologies for knowledge creation and validation. Unlike physical sciences, which use proof as the basis for validating new knowledge, social sciences happily use majority opinion as a substitute for proofs. An allied problem is the indiscriminate use of statistical methodologies based on measures of central tendencies, which are nothing but majoritarian instruments.

There is no logical basis for the majority being right. Right will remain right independently of what the majority says. New truths are always identified and brought to light by individuals and it often takes long for the recalcitrant majority to accept it even condescendingly. It is high time that we learn to understand and accept what is right based on its own merit and not based on what the majority says.

The fiat of the majority or 'majoritarianism', which runs most modern democracies is not very different from the law of the jungle. In the jungle, might is right. In democracies, majority is right. All that democracies have so far managed to achieve is to replace the tyranny of one or a coterie of individuals with that of the majority.

The problem of majoritarianism was obvious to the founders of democracies as it was to Tocqueville later. This is why, founders of democracy did not want to vest the elected representatives with 'absolute' power. In my view, democracies have managed to survive this far not because of the sagacity of our elected representatives but because of the equality of rights guaranteed in the 'Constitutions' and the checks and balances woven in to the system of governance.

The Constitution and an independent judiciary are the true guardians of democracy and a mature democracy will be one that progressively expands the authority of the Constitution and empowers the judiciary to be the guardian of not just the rule of Law but also the rule of 'right.'

What a profoundly ignorant article. It is sheep manure like this, that Americans don't take foreign critiques all that seriously. First. Get to actually know the nature of the people, culture, its history, its political heritage, its civics, with a Dickensian empathy to all its actors. This arrogant and ignorant Dutchmen, with his own prejudices blighting any semblance of understanding to what is going in the U.S. is full of dung. Framing the current situation from de Tocqueville, as good as he was a good analyst in the 1830s and prognosticator for certain aspects of America's future, provides but a singular perspective, which doesn't take into account the Gilded Age and the Progressives, and all the other dynamics that have occurred since then.

This is tourism punditry. I as a Canadian foreigner to American society and culture to which I have complicated anger and yet empathy towards, recognize nothing that remotely resonates with the current situation. It is a discredit to Project Syndicate to allow such credentialed morons to spew their Know-Nothing ignorance.

As this year's US presidential election is being gripped by extremes, Ian Buruma looks back at the American democracy of the 1830s, immortalised by the French intellectual, Alexis de Tocqueville in his masterpiece: "Democracy in America," which is as relevant and accurate today as it was 180 years ago. Americans, as de Tocqueville noticed, were an impatient people.
While De Tocqueville "expressed admiration for American civil liberties," he also "had serious reservations" about democracy being the power of the people. The "biggest danger" to democracy, he believed was "the tyranny of the majority, the suffocating intellectual conformity of American life, the stifling of minority opinion and dissent." According to Buruma, de Tocqueville also believed "that any exercise of unlimited power, be it by an individual despot or a political majority, is bound to end in disaster." Indeed, his words then still sound terrifyingly prescient today: "It is difficult to induce the people to take part in [democratic] government; it is still more difficult to supply them with the experience and the beliefs which they lack, but need in order to govern well."
Populism - an "unhinged democracy" - had always been seen as "unstable and dangerous" by America's founding fathers. They clearly recognised the dangers of having a mass of citizens make policy decisions without "restraints." The ancient Greeks proved that majority rule can devolve into mob rule. Populist autocrats gain power by virtue of elections. Illiberal democracies, such as Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Poland and Israel," are de Tocqueville's nightmarish reality, which see writers, artists, and journalists" or any regime critic as a fifth column.
De Tocqueville had noticed the "power of religion" and that liberty "was inextricably entwined with religious belief." The Protestant religion shocked him deeply and he said religious insanity was "very common." Indeed, "the temptation of going to extremes," denouncing "religious minorities," stoking "apocalyptic fears," and promoting "intolerance" still hold true today.
In recent years "anger at the elites" is a predominant issue, which is "not always unjust." Tea Party supporters don't trust anyone with a plausible air of authority. They associate "liberals" and "elites" with the "enemy of the people," saying "globalization, immigration, and cosmopolitanism have served the interests of a highly educated minority, but sometimes at the expense of less privileged people." Similar trend unfolds in Europe. Liberal elites and mainstream politicians are to blame for all their ills and anxieties, from the refugee crisis to the "inequities of the global economy, from 'multiculturalism' to the rise of radical Islam."
In order to defend our liberal democracy, "constraints on majority rule are necessary to protect the rights of minorities, be they ethnic, religious, or intellectual. When that protection disappears, we will all end up losing the freedoms that democracy was supposed to defend." Hence it is vital to maintain a strong, vibrant civil society, which safeguards the democratisation and revitalisation of society. It helps to keep government out of our lives, strengthens our interactions with the free market, and promotes inclusiveness.

"In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the traditional and primary method for appointing political officials and its use was regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Election and voting, in democracy, is for specific issues and proposals, not for public servants and by no means decisions are ever moved away from demos.

Ian, I believe the key aspect of American political dysfunction is the absence of a viable second party. In Germany, for example, if I grow dissatisfied with any of the main Volksparteien, I can switch my vote from the SPD to the CDU or vice versa, or go to the Greens, and I've "punished" my old party by supporting another that has different priorities but which still seems to have a basic grasp of 21st century realities. In the U.S., on the other hand, if I'm turned off by Hillary Clinton, my only alternative is a party that rejects evidence of global warming and lends a home to people who say they want to shut down the IRS, deport millions of people, and force rape victims to bear the children of the men who victimized them. In other words, for any sensible person who cherishes pragmatism and scientific analysis, there is nowhere to turn if you want to signal displeasure with the Democrats. This, indirectly, causes a host of problems, ranging from voter apathy to a lack of substantive debate within the political elite. The two-party system has collapsed; this is really the way in which American democracy has become unhinged. The poles have become so distant from one another that each side views the other as not even being worthy of consideration.

Democracy is deader then the Dodo. When was the last time government was responsive to anyone but big donors. Populism like or not is natural response to realizing the shitty hand they have is only going to get worse courtesy of cronyism Political "donations" of millions that aren't bribes of course, They are donating millions and paying 100's of thousands for speeches from the people who are supposed to regulate them out of the goodness of their hearts. Bluntly we have reached point where working feel F--k the political elites any change will probably be for the better. The "elites" are creating the nightmare themselves.

Democracy needs Editors indeed.
Dollared Democracy creates Inequalities - and New Minorities that cannot be silenced by Dollared Editors.
Inequalities challenge Capitalism, Democracy and Religion itself in that order perhaps.
Nobel Minds in Economics have so far elaborated on the challenge to Capitalism.
But unanimity in crafting the solution is proving elusive.
Numerous French Revolutions have repeatedly brought upon several Waterloos.
The Anglosphere has held together despite those French German Russian Spanish Italian Revolutions.
The Editors within The Anglosphere have been able to withstand previous challenges.
But this time it is different - KNOW THY ENEMY ensures VICTORY IN A THOUSAND BATTLES.
All roads lead to "Rome" - The Sanctuary always knows that Invincibility lies in The Defence.
The question uppermost has to be - what has to be defended ?
The Defence of Capitalism. Or.
The Defence of Democracy. Or.
The Defence of Religion. Or.
The Defence of Race. Or.
The Defence of Truth.

Populism is not one tenth as threatening to democracy as it is to oligarchy -- and _that_ is why "populism" is being turned into a dirty word in the United States.
It's important to recognized that populism can manifest in a politics of HOPE as well as it can in a politics of fear. In a healthy democracy the former thrives: in a sick one, or one already lost to a small and self- appointed ruling class, the later plays best to a desperate and disenfranchised people.

It's a darwinian process. Political units with the the right combination of "restraints" will do better. Oh and you can have a darwinian process with just one player too. Or many players. Probably better with many players.

It is an interesting article describing in theory how successful democracy with a mixture of mass and individual power could work.
Still I think it is missing the main reason why humanity has been constantly failing from generation to generation, from civilization to civilization always ending in a dead end.

It is our inherently self-serving, self-justifying nature and introverted and subjective perception of reality which distorts and sooner or later corrupts even the best laid plans, most optimal looking ideologies, social structures.
Human beings are very unique in nature's system as we do not feel inherent belonging to it. Human beings do not sense the instinctive "mutual guarantee", selfless, mutually complementing cooperation that is prevalent in nature.
This gives us free choice and an "outsider" observer status.

But it also disconnected us from sensing "absolute right or wrong", what is truly "natural or artificial" that animals can instinctively sense.
We simply do not feel nature's basic laws safeguarding balance and homeostasis thus we keep building artificial human societies that fail and collapse at the end.

We will not be able to solve our problems, we might not even be able to survive unless we can start sensing the "natural right or wrong", observing some absolute coordinate system we can measure ourselves against.
But in order to do that we would need to achieve similarity of form with nature's system and that can only happen in a human society that achieves selfless, mutually complementing cooperation.
Only by building a human mutual guarantee system can we tune ourselves to the "absolute coordinate system".

the fact that we have to build this consciously, against our inherent self-serving and egocentric inclination gives us a huge advantage over any other part of the system. Through such conscious adaptation we do not simply gain similarity, start sensing the absolute coordinates guiding our lives securing our survival. We become capable of controlling and using the system in a way that is mutually beneficial both from humanity's and the system's point of view.

The author is doing a *very* bad service to democracy, in a time where democracy is really elusive. The problems of American democracy are well known; for informing the author's misinterpretation, of the current form of "Unhinged Democracy" in the US, I will point him to a recent Princeton study: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Their conclusions are summarized as follows:
"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent in fluence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."

Thus, Mr Buruma's article is misplaced, to a large extend, exploiting the traditional overstatement of the importance of "liberal democracy", meaning the importance of liberal people *and not liberalism* in the context of democracy; nevertheless I will engage a bit in the specifics.

De Tocqueville's observations are relevant today only as far as it concerns the rights of minorities (not really mentioned). In democracy --true democracy-- there is no "stifling" of opinion and dissent, there is no "intellectual conformity"; in fact, true democracy, in its ancient definition, is based on isigoria (equal right of speech in demos gathering). Equal right to speech means equal among common people, minorities, scientists, professors, politicians, state/party leaders, everybody. Thus, for a true democracy --unlike British, American and French systems of elected politicians-- there is no case for suppression of opinion (minority or other) and liberalism of ideas is guaranteed; but there is the case of suppression of minority rights!

It is true that democracy is unequipped to address the issue of minority rights; majority has all the rights. There were some measures in place, in ancient Athens, to handle interest groups (e.g., excluding from vote citizens neighboring to an area toward which a decision on war or peace was made), but no attempt to handle oppression of minorities. Modern "democracies" have found the useful concept of rights (minority rights, women rights, human rights, etc), that can be used to address this problem of democracy.

But we should not force this concept of rights to democracy. Democracy is not about utility, or optimization (of the economy or other). Democracy is about self-governance --or autonomy-- and about the public feeling about justice --or the ethos of a society-- and the progress of these things. It cannot be bent to perceptions of right and wrong outside of society. A democratic society will take its time to mature.

Correction:
"I do not find that educated people have right to be heard and be taken seriously." ===>
"I do not find that educated people should have more of a right to be heard and be taken seriously."

Athenians did find that (direct) democracy --there is no such thing as indirect democracy-- does work. Democracy, with a small break, lasted for about 200 years in ancient Athens.

I do not find that educated people have right to be heard and be taken seriously. I find exactly the reverse should be happening: all people should have access to education and, in that, the chance to overcome fear. Those that think of themselves as liberal, should really ask themselves why they view things in this reversed way?

The details of why it is wrong for educated people to be heard more in a society, over the diversity of the views in the majority, is hidden in the current governance structures and its failure. The resulting world for the 1% is no accident. It is difficult to pin down the exact reasons of failure of "educated" elites. The most prominent reason is that elites tend to have as their overarching principle that effectiveness, of whatever strategy they view and decide as best, above the satisfaction of a larger portion of the population. Another reason is that they tend to judge things, thinking of themselves; they speak and think of means as ends, because they, personally, have special needs. They will not take into account the needs of the majority, because they --consciously-- do not put numbers of people behind these needs, as long as there is no danger of a revolution. And they cannot take into account the needs of others, even majorities, above their intellectual perception of "optimal" and "best" for all.

The fundamental reason that elites must not have more access to public speech, unless asked to inform public debate (not to tell their opinion, but only inform of alternatives), is that the majority, which will have to carry through the decisions, are the only ones entitled to make the decisions. They will have the responsibility of the outcome of decisions, so they should be making the decisions. Otherwise, we are back in a society where the ethos and direction of society comes out of the religious temple --a new kind, though-- and law is sent by "gods," not to be disputed with.

@Stamis Kavaadias,
if your words were correct, the Athenians would have discovered that direct democracy in fact does work!
You are probably right when you say "Educated people *must not* have more right to speak", but don´t you think educated people have more right to be heard? to be taken seriously?
Masses are ruled by fear, and tyrants are both visionary and ruthless when it comes to influencing the majority, even in "democracies".
If you were from a country with less an average of 6 years of schooling for adults you would probably think different about the majority and if an uneducated majority should choose national policies that will affect you, your family, and your children´s future. (In the US the mean is 13 years).
I would argue that a true democracy would need to have no information asymmetry, yet, that is quite impossible, and that is why you need additional checks and balances to "hinge" it into the crude reality of human behavior.

Firstly, "autonomy guarantees" --you are right-- refer to what I described in another point of my comment as "rationalized rules". In other words, yes, democracy is about "rationalized autonomy guarantees," or "majoritarian autonomy guarantees".

I agree to rights complementing democratic institutions, but in a revocable way (by democratic majority). I would also agree that rights must have higher status to common law, but not as high as democratic principles; "status" refers exactly to how easy or difficult it is to revoke them. The reason is that, in my view, it is far more important to preserve the guarantees of majority-rationalized rules than to introduce minority inclusion and, especially if you want to introduce such inclusion, majority-rationalized rules are endangered by powerful minorities (which includes people with knowledge, connections, or money).

Thus, we can discuss as much liberalism as anyone can imagine, under the precondition that majority-rationalized rules are not jeopardized. No other way is acceptable to me. In effect, I would support introducing, in a democratic process, an explicit step of considering the possibility of complementing or moderating a decision (a law), in order to provide more space for minorities and even special interests; but it would still have to be under the control and final say of the majority.

There are two more issues that I am aware about and are important "for a society that's going to last". The first is the issue of legitimacy of political participation: who is considered a citizen and when. This becomes more and more important, as emigration (e.g. for work) and refugees become commonplace. This is a common decision, for a democratic system and, probably, it is my personal preferences that make it appear so important.

The second is much more fundamental. It is about how and when, still in the *written in law* institutions, the majority can question its own political system and decide on its change. This has become important for me, because of the way modern "democracies" do not address it and actually avoid it, which has become very problematic and oppressive for me. I believe a system like Switzerland 's, where citizens can bring about a referendum on constitution change with compulsory outcome, is the appropriate answer to this. I do not know if in Switzerland this can change any part of the constitution, but I believe, such referenda should be intended to change *anything* the majority brings forward; even the essence of the political system and democratic principles.

As it turns out, I am an in fact an engineer. Philosophers might be perfectly content to spend their days sitting their bare butts on a rock in the shade of a tree, waiting for a perfectly ripe fruit to fall in their hand, but the rest of us... Ok, sorry, just teasing :-). I actually agree with most of what you're saying.

From my point of view, the "utility rule", from which we get the word "utilitarian" is a strawman. We can be sophisticated enough to recognize the limitations of any particular system of accounting for the "good", or "fair", or "just", or "prosperous", or "equitable", etc. Yet we can still recognize patterns when they are in front of us. I think it would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Democracy, in the pure sense you're talking about is the first principle, no doubt. The objective of refining the system is NOT to protect a minority who is already powerful or privileged. And this is a common way beneficiaries of undemocratic systems like to misrepresent the situation in their arguments, so that has to be remembered very carefully.

But I'd say that first principle alone is not sufficient for a society that's going to last, except with the rhetorical escape of saying something like "a pure democracy (purely majoritarian) can vote to experiment (or abandon) additional principles". So that's fine, and I suppose it is what I am advocating. Although I think maybe it's different from what you were saying.

Lastly, what you said in the beginning. I'm curious about this part: "My understanding is that democracy is a system of guarantees: autonomy guarantees." Wouldn't that apply *only* to members of the majority on any given question of policy? It would be an improvement over existing systems in many parts of the world, but could there be a way to improve further?

I will have to disagree on the way you look at the issue, on principal--not exactly in the details. The reason is that you are looking at democracy as a system that can provide outcomes: a better society. My understanding is that democracy is a system of guarantees: autonomy guarantees. Utility functions are at the hands of the self-governed society, in democracy, but they are not guaranteed. They are subject to the maturity of society. That was the final point in my comment.

Democracy is about rationalization of social rules. Majority rule is not a curse, as liberal people tend to think of it. It is exactly the opposite! Majority rule is the rationalization of rules. Anything not acknowledged by the majority, is suppression of the majority and, therefore, irrational rules for society. There is no need at all for anything like "tempering of majority rule". This is what makes society irrational. It breaks the guaranties democracy provides and society becomes subject to heteronomy by powerful minorities (autocracy) and elites (aristocracy).

There are no guarantees of utility in a democracy; only of rationalized social rules, by the rational of the majority. In fact, this is the crucial ingredient of democracy: the ability of society to judge itself and change itself. As I see it, to a large extend, his is what makes current forms of governance undemocratic. The economic system (predominantly) is irrational for the majority, because of rules (free trade and globalization rules) set in place above any citizen body and without any political process that can reverse it (e.g., see the euro). The sum of the parts is less than the total (the parts are much-much less) and the a-political (non-political) total prevails.

There is no room in democracy for "tempering of majority rule". There is only room for a majority maturing process, called history. Utility rule is for engineers!

Although, I think the thing that most people today consider Democracy, is not the purely majoritarian form, but has the added requirement of protecting minorities from exploitation from the majority. At a minimum, this is required on practical amoral grounds, since otherwise, the only recourse of a minority would be to fight for independence. After all, the adoption of Democracy in the first place must happen without the benefit of a system of rules which guarantee its adoption.

So some tempering of majority rule is necessary. I would maybe suggest, but not insist, that the system could compromise further to recognize that speech and influence is inherently unequal. For example, your ability to express yourself well, presumably because of your education, puts you in a better position than many other commenters, doesn't it? Similarly with someone who has money or some other advantage. So in recognition of this, I would suggest further compromises to pure majority rule -- again from the most basic amoral position that if you don't compromise on the balance of power with the wealthy and educated, the system would otherwise find itself fighting the its educated or wealthy minority.

So you get into fun stuff like trying to construct the system that handles these compromises gracefully. This begs the questions of what measures of goodness do you shoot for. Fun stuff. All optional.

None of this excuses Ian Baruma's conflation of the observation that demagogues get the first shot at being the protest vote, vs the observation by the protesting voters themselves that the conventional choices they used to vote for do not represent them.

So thank you for bringing that up! A protest vote is not "unhinged" democracy , quite the contrary.

One final thing on liberalism. Educated people *must not* have more right to speak or access to media than ordinary citizens. Elites should not have more access to politics. The rich should not have more access to politics and justice. Everybody knows these things; it is what we feel of the essence of democracy. No amount of window-dressing of elites and "clever bankers" will falsify these feelings.

I think that so called "Populist" movement are legitimate reflections of people expectation of changes. "Traditional" elites have defaulted to their promises that are why they cannot consider themselves as legatine elites. In this sense I think that an abrupt move towards the populist’s leaders is a normal reaction of democratic system. Unfortunately during the last 30 years the burden of the problems created by political and economical elites were manly affecting ordinary citizens and helping the elites to get even more powerful and reached than before. Failed to make small adjustments have lead to an extreme response which could be forecasted if the elites would think ahead not only about preservation of their wealth but also about the preservation of social cohesion.
In this respect the Populist fen omen is a good reminder for `Traditional` elites that even they can be stripped off the power if the power is not used wisely.

Interesting article, but the comment "Or, rather, the rhetoric of many Republicans aspiring to be President sounds like a perversion of what he saw in 1831." The know-nothing party would seem to contradict this in their nativist, anti-Catholic sentiment of the early 1850s. This political discourse is not new in the American experience.

Unfortunately here in America the lust for power and greed cannot be better defined than good 'ol Ms. Hillary and Billy Boy willingly compromising State security for the benefit in self-serving agenda and more specifically as we hear media reports of hugh sums of monies by the "insiders" lining the coffers of the Clinton Foundation!

Given the preciousness of voting and choosing an elected official who we here on "Main Street USA" entrust to enforce the laws and stand forthright for our Constitution and pledge a commitment to the Judeo-Christian principles of our beloved Republic and seemingly all we receive for such support are politicians and their spin in empty political rhetoric who don't really give a damn about anything other than themselves - thus, the phenomenon of Donald Trump! a good man, a family man and an indivdiual and family who hold to a benchmark and are not swayed by the politicians who they understand are so easily "bought off" and understand as well that whether local state or otherwise, the same is true in Asia, Europe, Africa and elsewhere that greed and lust for power has now positioned humanity on the brink of another World War - the third in 100 years! God Bless us all!

As we await to see shortly Merkel passing the baton to Karl Guttenberg and we see some surprises in this upcoming November election when finally we can rid ourselves with an ending term of a Barack Hussein Obama who has set about in loyalty to his father, Hussein Obama and his anti-American, Kenyan pals and has done his utmost to weaken American in every way and as this Chicago city street slicker and nothing more as he did at Harvard standing atop milk crate with his pals like Billy Ayers and as a follower of Frank Marshall seeking to be as divisive and insulting to a Democracy who has spent their precious youth to protect humanity from the soldiers of Lucifer -,,,,well, unfortunately folks it seems that despite all the good intentions and an America like everyone else with its flaws and injustices....a geopolitical landscape now so unhinged given the failed policies of a biased and tainted America which promises to lead to global conflagration unless Karl Guttenberg who will lead Germany to fill the void of a less instrumental America can make a difference and given that Germany has duped many along the way in history, lessons we must be attentive to....we folks are to have a pretty hard landing ourselves, never mind the Chinese who have a leadership who spins 6% growth when far less and really has little clue in how it will address its numerous problems and all very much affecting the global landscape --

Time to repent and time to demand accountability and transparency from the local to the top for we have seen barack Husein Obama and good 'ol Ms. Hillary standing shoulder to shoulder in blatant lie at the "Benghazi Massacre" and again in prostituting America by affording a server for all to read and in return, a media which points to substantial monies into the Clinton Foundation coffers -